On Sun, 2007-09-30 at 10:15 +0300, Blue Swirl wrote:
On 9/30/07, J. Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 23:43 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
Also note that changing variables from int to long have strictly no
impact on 32 bits host machines, then won't help emulating more
I'm confused. You say you don't agree with me, then give an example that
confirms what I said (Replace Guest OS with machine memory map as
appropriate).
What I don't agree is the fact that emulating huge amount of physical
address space is not immediatly useful.
Ah, ok. I meant
On 9/29/07, J. Mayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imho, having 42 bits of physical address space as a default is clearly
not a good solution.
I agree that the number of bits could be reduced. Something like 36
bits (64G) should be enough for some years.
First of all, it's a nonsense for most 32
Also note that changing variables from int to long have strictly no
impact on 32 bits host machines, then won't help emulating more than 2
GB of RAM. Another variable type (target_phys_addr_t ?) should be used
instead.
This patch should be restricted to 64-bit hosts. I don't think it's
On Sat, 2007-09-29 at 23:43 +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
Also note that changing variables from int to long have strictly no
impact on 32 bits host machines, then won't help emulating more than 2
GB of RAM. Another variable type (target_phys_addr_t ?) should be used
instead.
This patch
